Mathias Sajovitz 2007-03-27
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
In his book, Rifkin does not take a position of constant opposition to biotechnology but rather one of skepticism - a skepticism which at some point seems exaggerated, however appears to be justified.
With the invention of the computer respectively information technologies the world has entered a new age. Information is at the core of such a new world that people find themselves in. Progress in a computerized world made it possible to approach the human existence respectively humanity from a new different perspective. Computation of human DNA led to a view of life in terms of mere information. Indeed, human beings are now in the position to alter genetic information and thus to reshape the concept of life - of themselves and other creatures. Whilst one has to acknowledge that genetic engineering in fact could serve as a powerful tool - especially when thinking in economical terms - it must also be regarded as thoroughly dangerous as will be explained on later. Of course one could regard an increase in food production achieved by genetic engineering as something positive as it, for example, could potentially replace petrochemical farming or engage microorganisms as environmental cleaning agents. What are the implications for humanity when one can easily alter genetic information of future human offspring? The detection of potential diseases in fetuses has already led to the termination of many pregnancies - this is no longer a vision, it is a reality. Where is this world going to lead us? One of conformity? Diversity is at stake in the Biotech Century! The information age made genetic information "green gold" and in fact this leads to a challenge for humanity, caused by economic interest. Genetic engineering gives power to scientists and thus private enterprises are able to create life or exclude genetic information from coming into existence. As a simple consequence it is economic interest that will determine whether a genetic feature is regarded as good or bad. Eureka. Rifkin's The Biotech Century covers five crucial aspects of this new era and its implications for humanity and the world: Can life be intellectual property? Will biotechnology introduce a second genesis? Is biotechnology to be seen in a eugenic context? What impacts do genes have on our lives? What impacts does information technology have in regards to economy and life? And finally: What consequences arise out of the Biotech century for our views on nature?
As already pointed out, it is economic interests that govern the patterns in dealing with genetic information. Capitalism can be observed at his "finest" when considering that the Biotech Century led to the patenting of life forms. Though there was a lot of doubt and even legislation against the patenting of whole living entities, in the end it became even possible to patent whole (cloned) organisms. To illustrate biopiracy and its importance for Pan-Africanism, Rifkin refers to a Madagascan plant called Rosy Periwinkle. Having been used in traditional African medicine, Western researchers be-came aware of it and found that the plant produced vincristine - an agent that is effective in the treatment of some cancer forms. Of course the pharmaceutical information was economically exploited, while Madagascar did not gain anything. As the southern hemisphere is particularly biodiverse and thus rich in genetic information, the threat of biocolonialism becomes more than obvious. Again the West is about to benefit from regions of the southern hemisphere, as world history has already seen in Western colonialism and imperialism. Moreover one must ask a crucial question: How can somebody patent something that is already there? Even more so, the Biotech Century raises the issue of how to define life.
Another challenge to humanity is the uncertainty of what impacts genetic en-gineering will have on the environment as well as the human species. A striking example is recombinant DNA, which is simply uncontrollable, as demonstrated by Dr. Gallo in 1990 with "super" AIDS. Moreover the biotech enterprises show no interest in assessing risks in an effective way but conduct pro-forma risk assessment tests that are unreliable, ultimately leading to ecological roulette. "Visions of paradise" can also be found in the context of biological warfare, in which biotechnology opens up new "playgrounds". Moreover, the Biotech century has implications for our relationship to other species, as they often serve as experimental fields for Biotech research and thus are the ones who have to suffer as a result of humanity's curiosity. Acknowledging the fact that animals ARE suffering in biotechnological experiments, one has to ask what long-term effects humans will have to face - they too are "guinea pigs". Humanity often praises itself with its diversity and thus one has to challenge biotechnology from this viewpoint too, as the Biotech century will per se lead to uniformity.
A moral field of concern it the one of eugenics. Invented through racial dichotomies and stereotypes, the past has proven to what extent eugenics can result in atrocities and mere inhumanity - indeed a threat to any concept of humanity. That a eugenic civilization could be easily achieved by applying biotechnology is rather self-explanatory. However, the question remains, if eugenics could happen again on a large scale basis in our "free" world. For this purpose, Rifkin refers to eugenics in America, and astonishingly hardly anyone seems to be aware of the fact that the United States have a prominent history in eugenics before World War II. Politics and legislation had created a framework in which eugenics were practiced alarmingly effectively. Thus for example, immigration laws were constructed in order to "whiten" American society. It does not require much imagination what would happen if certain political movements were able to gain political power and would abuse biotechnology in order to reinforce "positive" genetic traits and "wipe out" "negative traits". As a matter of fact, the Biotech century could make a eugenic civilization possible - if the wrong people were in charge. However, eugenics is not necessarily a societal phenomenon. It is already in place at a family level - the crucial institution in every society - when one thinks of abortions. Thinking one step further, family policies in conjunction with politics could result in the creation of a "super human". Moreover one should not forget cultural and psychological implications, genetic eugenics might have.
Biosociology also plays an important role in the discourse on the Biotech century. It is mainstream conviction that genes determine an individual's behavior rather than the environments, individuals find themselves in. Finally it seems that the genetic era decided the battle between nature and nurture in favor of nature - in fact genes. Thus for example, the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research provides evidence that most of the traits are primarily hereditarily determined. Some researchers even claim that a per-son's fate is "inscribed" in the genetic code - astrology is finally obsolete. In the "perfect world" that we live in, technology is regarded the key to fix shortcomings in each respect. Thus one might easily conclude that genetic engineering will be used to alter genetic information in order to create "healthy" human beings. However, what is health? It is nothing else than a matter of definition. A commentary by Dr. Le Vay, who raises the question whether homosexuality is a "biological predisposition, social preference, an illness, a simple deviation from the norm, or a normal variation of sexuality" speaks for itself. When uniformity and the "norm" are prerequisites for "our personal and collective well-being" and deviations from the norm are thus "undesired" - what does this imply for minorities? What proponents of the Third Reich and supremacist thought in general did to humanity, could thus be accomplished without much recognition through genetic engineering - homosexuality only serving as one example out of many others.
In order to draw a bigger picture, Rifkin also turns to cosmology - a society's understanding of nature. The Biotech century, ground shaking as it is, demands for a new cosmology. As our concepts of nature are linked to their societies, they tend to justify the circumstances, a society creates. This interdependence between societies and their cosmologies leads to a fostering of injustices within societies. Everything is in its natural order, as for example can be demonstrated with Thomas of Aquin's philosophy. This new era with all its implications will replace the Darwinist cosmology with its own, where genetic engineering simply is part of the natural order. The future "Darwinian entity" will be able to gather information in order to adapt to its environment. In this context genetic engineering makes sense: in anticipating the future from genetic data and altering it, biotechnology serves the common gain. This is dangerous grounds in terms of ethics, when considering the pretext. When life is information, the Darwinist "survival of the fittest" is replaced with the "survival of the best informed" and this raises the issue of access to information. In terms of an understanding of humanity, this postmodern paradigm shift is major as human beings become creators and designers of themselves as well as of their environment.
